The purpose of this report is to
identify the different options considered for the provision of a safe
pedestrian crossing facility on Gloucester Street adjacent to Atawhai
Retirement Village, and to obtain a decision supporting the provision of a
central refuge and additional road markings and signage.

This proposal arises from the
community concern around the safety of the existing crossing facility.

Officer’s
Recommendation

That Council

a. Approve
the installation of an upgrade to the existing crossing facility to include a
central pedestrian refuge.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the
officer’s recommendation be adopted.

1.2 Background Summary

The original request for the
provision of a pedestrian crossing to be installed adjacent to the Atawhai
retirement village dates back to 2010; since then there have been numerous
requests and subsequent reports discussing the matter. The topic has most
recently come to Council in 2015, and at that time, it was decided to retain
the status quo.

Since then submissions have been
received as part of the 2016/17 Annual Plan process from the Atawhai retirement
village, Grey Power, Taradale Community and Development Association and the
Otto family, requesting that the crossing facility be evaluated again.

1.3 Issues

Since 2006, there have been five
recorded crashes at this location, of which only one was involving a
pedestrian. This crash occurred in 2012 where the pedestrian stepped in
to the road without looking for approaching vehicles and was not paying
attention to their surroundings. This resulted in minor injuries.

To ensure that the crossing
facility is as safe as possible a number of options have been investigated, as
detailed below.

Pedestrian Crossing

The previous reports have
detailed why the provision of a formal pedestrian crossing is not the preferred
solution for this location and this position is still supported by Council
officers.

Previous investigations into
formalising the pedestrian crossing have found that the pedestrian and
vehicular counts do not meet either the superseded warrant process or the
latest NZTA Guideline for the Selection of Pedestrian Facilities. As
there has been no change in land use or notable increase in traffic on Gloucester
Street, there would not be a significant change to the outcome of those
investigations at present.

NZTA guidelines and
international studies show that “zebra crossings” are not
considered a safe option in the majority of circumstances, and where they are
not entirely justified or inappropriately located they may actually increase
the risk of accidents.

Pedestrian Island

The provision of a central
pedestrian island will reduce exposure time for people crossing the road.

With some alterations to the
existing kerb buildouts, and by adjusting the kerb line at the bus stop, it is
possible to install a central island without affecting the traffic lane widths
or the provision of the on-road cycle lane. The flush median will allow
traffic to be able to wait for space to turn right in to Hinton Road without
blocking through traffic. There would only be space available for two
cars within the flush median, however this is in fact an increase to the
existing provision, where a right turner would block through traffic unless
they merge into the cycle lane, which creates a more significant risk.

The narrowing effect of the
additional road marking proposed with this solution has been shown to slow
traffic speeds at other sites as it increases awareness that the traffic
environment has changed.

Changing the existing Give Way
on Hinton Road to a STOP will also increase safety for people crossing at this
location, as vehicles will no longer be able to enter Gloucester Street freely
and therefore will travel more slowly through the crossing location.

Signalised pedestrian
crossing facility

A standalone signalised
pedestrian crossing facility can be installed if there is a known safety
problem.

Signals would also delay both
pedestrian and vehicles, which would lower benefits if calculated for a benefit
cost ratio.

The cost to construct a
signalised pedestrian crossing facility is estimated to be in the order of
$100,000 which is a significant disincentive.

Due to the low crash history,
cost, and delays it is not deemed the most appropriate facility, though it
would provide a safe crossing facility for pedestrians.

Raised platform

A raised platform would reduce
speed at this location but it is not a suitable location given Gloucester
Street is a major arterial road.

The increased noise and
vibration would also be a significant issue for the adjacent properties, due to
the large number of vehicles using this road.

It is generally considered that
vertical deflection devices should not be used in isolation, but should be part
of an area wide treatment with clear entry and exit points (gateways).

Relocation of the crossing
facility

This was investigated but no
suitable location was found that would still have the benefits required for the
children and retirement village.

This location would continue to
be used to cross due to the schoolchildren using the bus stop on the opposite
side of Gloucester Street and proximity to Atawhai Village.

1.4 Significance and
Consultation

This project does not constitute a significant project and
the upgrade of the crossing facility does not affect any residential dwellings.

1.5 Implications

Financial

The recommended option is estimated to cost approximately
$30,000 and will be funded from the minor improvements budget for 2017/18. This
project would qualify for NZTA funding assistance of 51%.

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

With the provision of any pedestrian crossing facility,
there is risk of conflict between a pedestrian and motor vehicle resulting in
serious injury. This is mitigated by the upgrade as detailed above which
will improve safety.

The public may still request a formal pedestrian crossing after the proposed
improvement.

· To update Council
on the intended declaration of Prebensen Drive from the expressway to Hyderabad
Road as State Highway and the revocation of SH2 from Watchman Road to Hyderabad
Road to Napier City Council control.

· To seek delegated
authority for the Director of Infrastructure to negotiate a final agreement
with NZTA.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a. receives
this report for information; and

b. Delegates
authority to the Director of Infrastructure to finalise an agreement
with NZTA in relation to the State Highway declaration and revocation
processes identified in this report.

MAYOR’S/CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the
officer’s recommendation be adopted.

2.2 Background Summary

NZTA have identified the route
to the Port of Napier as regionally strategic and notified Council of their
intention to declare Prebensen Drive a State Highway and concurrently revoke
Pandora Road and Meeanee Quay to local authority ownership.

This intention was signalled to
Council a number of years ago but was not actioned at that time. The current
NZTA network team are now keen to complete this process, partly driven by the
recent revisions to the Vehicle Dimensions and Mass (VDAM) Rule which has
enabled the use of heavier trucks on the network. Limits on the carrying
capacity of the Pandora Bridge have resulted in most freight from the north
using Prebensen Drive to access the port. The widening undertaken by Napier
City Council on Prebensen Drive has also contributed to it being favoured by
freight from the south.

NZTA have stated:

At present,
the ownership of the link to the Port is confusing for customers and not well
aligned with how the region sees freight movements in future. Given that the
Napier City Council (NCC) prefers to see the majority of freight using
Prebensen Drive, it makes strategic sense to include the four lane section
within the state highway network.

Declaration and
revocation of State Highways is legislated by the Land Transport Management Act
2003 (LTMA). The legislation requires NZTA to consult with the affected road
controlling authority (RCA), but does not compel the agreement of said
authority. If the RCA does not agree with the revocation, NZTA may still
recommend the revocation to the Ministry of Transport, with the onus on
demonstration that the road is ‘fit for purpose’.

Pursuant of
Section 103 of the LTMA it is NZTA’s intention to revoke the section of
existing State Highway 2 between the Watchman Road intersection and Hyderabad
Road (Meeanee Quay & Pandora Road). As a result of this revocation,
management and control will be returned to Council as the relevant RCA.

In exchange,
Prebensen Drive (from the Expressway to Hyderabad Roundabout), will be declared
as State Highway, and management and control will be transfer to NZTA as the
relevant road controlling authority. The plan appended to this report
identifies the affected lengths of road.

In September 2014, Council
considered a report from the Roading Manager relating to the Four Laning of
Prebensen Drive and transfer of assets between NZTA and Napier City Council (Report
S60-0171). That meeting resolved to seek the best possible advantage in the
negotiations with NZTA for the long term maintenance and renewal of the
sections of road revoked as State Highways and returned to Council ownership.

The construction of the
Prebensen Drive four-laning between Hyderabad Road and Hawke’s Bay
Expressway was completed in 2016 for a total of $6.9m and was primarily funded
from financial contributions.

There are opportunities for
Council if it were to take over ownership of these roads to improve the
environment around Pandora Pond and to reduce the truck traffic particularly
through Meeanee Quay and across the Pandora Bridge. Becoming the road
controlling authority for Meeanee Quay and Pandora Road will increase the ease
with which improvements can be made, particularly with regard to implementing
the Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan.

2.3 Issues

The relative lane lengths of the
roads to be declared are similar (6.4km on Prebensen Drive: 6.05km on Pandora
Road and Meeanee Quay).

However, due to the age
difference between the two sections of road there is a significant disparity
between the book values of each section of road. This matter, together with the
issue of differing annual depreciation allowances and cost of intended
maintenance and renewal of each section of road will need to be considered in
reaching a final agreement. Both organisations have identified some programmed
maintenance interventions for the 17/18 financial year on their respective
roads that will be completed prior to handover.

Pandora Bridge is well into its
design life. It was seismically strengthened approximately 8 years ago,
but is at the limit of its structural capacity when in use.

Reducing the truck traffic
across the bridge may help to increase the service life of the bridge however the
harsh marine environment will have a greater impact on its deterioration than
loading.

Pandora Road is known to be have
some maintenance issues with several sections having subsided over time.
Meeanee Quay is in relatively good condition and should only require normal
maintenance for the remainder of its life.

The legislation does allow for
maintenance deficiencies to be brought to the attention of NZTA after handover
and there is also an expectation that known deficiencies will be addressed by
NZTA prior to handover.

2.4 Significance and
Consultation

This does not constitute a
significant process and it is deemed that consultation is not required.

2.5 Implications

Financial

There is no significant
impact on operational budgets. Future maintenance costs will be managed within
existing budgets, partially offset by the declaration of Prebensen Drive, which
has greater lane length and traffic loadings.

NZTA have
agreed in principle to retain the bridge on their current inspection schedule,
with any findings reported to Napier City Council. Once their current
inspection contract ends, then Council will add this asset to their existing
inspection programme. This offer will be reciprocated by Napier City Council in
respect of the culverts under Prebensen Drive.

There will be a
minor change in the annual asset valuation once the handovers are finalised.

The greatest
risk to Council is future bridge renewal, which has not been included in
depreciation and renewal forecasts. Unlike Council, NZTA do not depreciate
assets and there is therefore no ‘accumulated depreciation’ held or
calculated against the bridge. Council needs to consider the likely value of
depreciation which would have generated against the asset had it always been
under Napier’s control. This issue has been the focus of much of
the discussion with NZTA to date, where they have indicated that they will
either provide a financial contribution on handover, provide a
‘guarantee’ for a period following handover, or offer an increased
financial subsidy when Council has to renew the bridge or some of its
components.

Social & Policy

In accepting the change in road
ownership, it will enable Council to realise the projects associated with the
road network in the Pandora Masterplan to be realised.

Risk

NZTA may not guarantee Pandora
Bridge or agree to undertake maintenance of the State Highway before the
handover takes place which results in a financial burden on Council’s
existing maintenance budget.

2.6 Options

There are two options available;

1. Agree
to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 process and continue to engage
proactively with NZTA.

2. Object
to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 process.

2.7 Development of
Preferred Option

Option 1– Agree to the
LTMA process

This is the preferred option.
Maintaining a collaborative engagement with this process will enable Council to
maintain the positive working relationship with NZTA and benefit from
completing negotiations in good faith. There has been no indication from NZTA
that they will not cover any reasonable funding shortfalls to Council as a
result of this process.

Participating and supporting the
process will enable a timely resolution for both parties and greater confidence
in our future assets and associated maintenance obligations. Furthermore, it
will provide Council with the control of those sections of road where community
benefits can be achieved through the Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge
Masterplan.

Option 2 – Object to
the LTMA process

The potential for meaningful
objection is limited under the LTMA processes. The required consultation
processes do not have a requirement for agreement and there is therefore no
effective leverage for Council.

Should Council object to the
process NZTA would only need to demonstrate that the assets it is transferring
are ‘fit for purpose’.

Objection to the process would appear
to be a risk to the good relationship between NZTA and NCC with little or
nothing to be gained.

To outline the feedback received
from the community consultation on the electoral systems and seek a decision
from Council on which electoral system to use for the 2019 election.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Retain First Past the Post as the electoral system for
the 2019 elections.

OR

b. Change the electoral system to Single Transferable Vote
(STV) for the electoral system for the 2019 and 2022 elections.

c. Note that a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required to
meet the 12 September 2017 deadline to make a decision on the electoral
system and notify the public by 19 September 2017. This will require the
following resolution to be passed before the decision of Council is taken:

Agree that, in terms of Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act
2002, that the principles of consultation set out in that section have been
observed in such manner that the Napier City Council considers, in its
discretion, is appropriate to make decisions on the recommendation.

MAYOR’S/CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the
officer’s recommendation be adopted.

3.2 Background Summary

At the Finance Committee meeting
on 2 August 2017, Council was provided with a background paper on electoral
systems that contained detailed information on First Past the Post (FPP) and
Single Transferable Vote (STV) (Attachment A). Since that time, Officers
have undertaken engagement with the public through an education campaign and
consultation process. Outlined below is a summary of the data collected
during this engagement to inform Council on the public’s view of the
electoral system.

Engagement summary 3 August to
23 August:

· Media release announcing that we are
getting ready to take a paper to our Councils and we need the public to have their
say.

· A Talk To Us page on the Napier
City Council website educating community on the two possible systems and what
they mean – the public will be able to nominate which they choose.

As a country we now support MMP which is
an alternative to FPP. In a similar way STV is the system where we get
representatives with the broadest support. I support a change to STV

We already have this system for voting
for the Health Board. Most people are familiar with it, even if, as one of
your commentators says, it requires more thought and time. It is fairer. it
is more democratic. FFP is a very blunt instrument and does not always
reflect what was hoped for. A bit more education on the STV system would be
helpful. When it is used more often people will get used to it. (2 likes)

fairer system

Need change

This is the fairest voting system and
ensures that fewer votes are wasted.

Gives voters a better option in my
opinion to have a broader say in elections, rather than just the one choice.

Better system by far

I only want to vote

This is far more democratic, in the views
of the public actually standing for something rather than a straight lottery
of FFP where only one view is applied the vote. This allows the council to
better apply the wishes and views of the voting public.

A fairer and more democratic system.

STV is by far the most democratic and
fair means of electing. We ditched FPP nationally for MMP and that has been a
disaster for NZ with Governments being held to ransom by tiny support
parties. (1like)

This voting system gives a fairer result,
because it more accurately captures the range of voters' preferences. We
already use this system for the health board and it would be easier for
voters if we used just one system for Napier City council and the Regional
Council as well. (2 likes) (1 dislike)

STV (2 likes)

Far more democratic.

I believe Single Transferable Vote is a
more democratic system

A fairer system. As it better
represents ratepayers views v

STV as it gives your 2nd, 3rd choices a
chance. It also stops people from not voting for someone that they support
yet they think there is no chance of them being elected (as under FPTP).
However I do think FPTP is simpler which is important - a lot of people will
give up on voting if it is too complicated! Especially young people.

I also wish that we had been given this
option at a Central Government level, instead of MMP. MMP gives way too much
power to the minority parties, out of kilter with their actual level of
support. STV is more complex but offers the most fair & TRUE
representation of what the Electorate (voters) truly want.

I like the way Napier City has a mixture
of ward and at large councilors. It gives us the best of both worlds. I would
support this continuing. To my mind STV offers the best opportunity for
elected representatives to reflect the wishes of the voters i.e if your first
choice doesn't make the cut then your second might. Note: This comment
reflects my personal view only.

Electoral Systems card at Civic Reception

STV

Flow down effect gives people more of a
chance

So much better!

STV is a more fair system

Facebook

STV, more representative of the votes
people make. Many councils and countries are using it successfully

STV would be my preference

STV all the way! Better than FPP in many
ways. Also way more democratic than MMP which totally sucks! If
National lose in Sept we’ll end up with a Labour, Green, NZ first
fiasco. But I live in Havelock so looks like I don’t get to
participate. (2 likes)

STV, the fairest of them all.

STV (1 like)

Scotland introduced STV for local
elections some time ago. Look at the Scottish government website to see
how its been working.

First Past the
Post

Council’s Talk to us page

Voting needs to be simple and straight
forward. We shouldn't be paying people to spend more time counting votes for
most liked candidate to the least liked. Also voters don't want to be
thinking about other candidates who they DON'T WANT to win. It's just down
right confusing. (1 like)

You vote for the person(s) you want and
if you don't get it, tough.

Agree with comments already made in
support of FFP.

STV is too time consuming for both the
voter and those counting the votes. Also more chance of mistakes being made

This system is easier for people to
understand, consequently they are more likely to place a vote.

you know who you are getting

i prefer 1st past the post

FPP is the easiest, quickest and
understandable voting system for the majority of voters to use. More people
would probably vote using this system instead of having to try to rank the
candidates which takes a lot more time and thought and is more complicated.

Candidate with the most votes is the
choice of the majority of the voters

With the number of voters per election
this is the simplest option.

FPP the most democratic way to vote

That way I know my vote counts for the
person I want, rather than it being transferred to someone I don't want

STV is so confusing and feels like a
diluted vote. I want to vote for my preferred candidates rather than ranking
them. Stick with FPP it's simpler, people understand it. I think a change to
STV may reduce voter turnout as it's not as simpler system.

The winner wins! With STV a person or
party who poles less than the winner can coddle some other persons or party
and end up with a casting vote! This does not show the will of the people! So
let's be sensible and stick to FPP. (2 likes)

Much better than any other system.
(2 likes) (1 dislike)

FPP. One vote done..not wrapping 2nd
and third choices in cotton wool

Too many folk don’t understand STV
& end up voting for people they don’t even know. FPP much
simpler.

Keep it simple. It’s hard
enough getting people to vote already. Let’s not complicate
things with rankings and system changes.

In the first flag referendum with STV the
flag with the most votes came second.

Challenging enough to get people to vote
and FPP is far simpler for people to understand and accept if their chosen
candidates don't win. STV confuses voters, people are less satisfied with the
convoluted ranking process and the DHB should revert to FPP again too.

The Flag Referendum demonstrated that
voters don't understand the weighing of ranking in the STV system, or that
it's optional to indicate secondary ranking.

Electoral Systems card at Civic Reception

STV is too complicated. FPP you know who
you have voted for. (Electoral Systems Card)

Because its easier.

Facebook

FPP seems a lot simpler and requires less
man power to record results AND less thinking for voter. I’ve
used STV and find it confusing because I have to think about choosing other
people who I don’t want to win? (1 like)

First past the post is the easiest!
Not 1, 2, 3. (3 likes)

It’s FPP. (2
likes)

FPP, look where STV got us with the first
flag referendum, the flag with the most votes came second. Thank
heavens for the second referendum.

FPP (1 like)

FPP (1 like)

FPP…but are we being asked to vote
on it, or just offer comments? The post is not really very clear in its aims.

FPP

FPP

FPP

FPP seems pretty loud n clear

No preference/other

Facebook

I don’t think it matters. If it is about motivating
a greater voter turnout, only engaging with the people will help. I commend
the proactive stance though (2 likes).

Whatever it will be we should abolish the wards.
Napier is not big enough for our current system and we have seen in the past
that we couldn’t even find enough candidates. (1 like)

Voters have never been foolish enough to offer free
information! Figure it out if in doubt.

Crikey. The Napier City Council has finally
discovered public consultation. Over this issue anyway.

Clean water (1 like)

3.3 Issues

N/A

3.4 Significance and
Consultation

N/A

3.5 Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

3.6 Options

The options available to Council
are as follows:

1. Change the
electoral system from FPP to STV for 2019 and 2022 Elections (any change in the
electoral system must apply to the next two general elections).

2. Retain the FPP
system for the 2019 election (this does not technically need a resolution, the
electoral system continues until it is changed).

3. Hold a poll on
the electoral system to apply for the 2019/22 elections by
21 February 2018. A poll is likely to cost up to $100,000.

3.7 Development of
Preferred Option

Options 1 or 2 are preferred
as Council. Option 3 is not a preferred option due to the cost (a poll
could cost up to $100,000), which may not be considered a prudent use of
Council funds.

To introduce the key legislative
requirements for undertaking a representation review and outline the process
for the review of Napier City’s representation arrangements for 2018.

Officer’s
Recommendation

That Council

a. Receive
the report titled Representation Review.

b. Note
that pre-consultation will be undertaken with the public to help inform the
Council of local issues and needs. Pre-consultation will occur prior to
a representation model being developed, and then formal consultation will
occur with the public on the model.

c. Note
that Council will be asked to make a decision on the representation model in
March 2018, which is then put through the statutory process of
consultation.

MAYOR’S/CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the
officer’s recommendation be adopted.

4.2 Background Summary

Overview

Quality democratic processes are
important and foster a richer form of citizenship and civic engagement.
Electoral arrangements need to be fair so that communities feel that they have
influence and can effect change.

Under the Local Electoral Act 200[1], a Local Authority must review its representation arrangements
every six years. Napier City Council last reviewed its representation in
2012, and is now due to review its representation arrangements. The
review must be completed and publicly notified by
8 September 2018.

Representation arrangements are the way
representation of the public is configured for elections for a Local Authority
such as Napier City Council, including:

· Whether the election
of members (also known as councillors) (other than the Mayor) is by the entire
electoral district (called ‘at large’), whether the district is
divided into wards for electoral purposes, or whether there will be a mix of
‘at large’ and ward representation,

· The boundaries of
wards, the names of the wards, and the number of members that will represent
each ward, if wards are used,

· The total number of
members that are elected to the governing body of Napier City Council (the
legal requirement is no less than 6 and no more than 30 members, including the
Mayor), and

· Whether to have
community boards, and if so, how many, and what their boundaries and membership
will look like.

The aim of the review is to ensure fair
and effective representation:

· Fair representation relates to the number of persons represented per
member (must be within +/-10% of the ratio for the district as a whole so each
person has a vote of equal value).

· Effective representation relates to representation for identified
communities of interest. This needs to take account of the nature and
locality of those communities and the size, nature and diversity of the
district as a whole.

How a
representation review works

The process for
undertaking a representation review is largely prescriptive and outlined in
legislation (Local Electoral Act 2001) and guidelines produced by the Local
Government Commission. Councils do however have discretion on the level
of investment in pre-consultation before the statutory process starts.

Investing in
pre-consultation is considered best practice, as this will help inform the
Council of local issues and needs, prior to developing a proposal and
undertaking formal consultation on it (see Attachment A for the engagement
summary).

An indicative
timeline based on the statutory process is outlined below (see Attachment B for
more detail):

March 2018

Decision of Council.

April 2018

Notify public of Council’s
resolution including reasons and
method of making submissions (at least 1 month for submissions).

May 2018

Submissions considered
by Council and original proposal amended as decided (notify public of final
proposal including reasons why submissions were incorporated or not).

June-December 2018

Appeals from those
who submitted on the original proposal and fresh objections to any amendments
received no later than 20 Dec 2018.

January 2019

Appeals and
objections forwarded to Local Government Commission by 15 Jan 2019.

April 2019

Appeals and
objections considered and a determination set by the Local Government
Commission (no later than 11 April 2019).

April-June 2019

Council implements determination to take
effect for the 2019 elections.

October 2019

Elections.

Overview of Napier City’s representation arrangements

Current
arrangements

Napier’s
current representation arrangements have been in place for a decade and are:

· 12 elected members and a Mayor

· Mixed system of “at large” and wards.

o There
are six elected members voted in “at large” and six elected members
voted in to wards.

o There
are four wards including:

§ Ahuriri
(one elected member);

§ Onekawa/Tamatea
(one elected member);

§ Nelson
Park (two elected members); and

§ Taradale
(two elected members).

· There are no Community Boards.

Based on the
Local Government Commission electoral statistics produced on 26 January 2017
(See Attachment C for more detail), Napier City with a population of 61,050,
currently has one elected member for every 5,088 people based on 12 elected
members (excluded the Mayor).

The following
tables provides Napier City’s electoral statistics. Up to date
population statistics will be available later in 2017.

Population represented

Elected Members

Population-Member ratio

Wards

61,050

6

10,175

At large

61,050

6

10,175

Total

61,050

12

5,088

Ward

Population represented

Elected Members

Population-Member ratio

Difference from quota

% Difference from quota

Ahuriri Ward

10,050

1

10,050

-125

-1.23

Onekawa-Tamatea Ward

10,250

1

10,250

75

0.74

Nelson Park Ward

18,450

2

9,225

-950

-9.34

Taradale Ward

22,300

2

11,150

975

9.58

Subtotal

61,050

6

N/A

N/A

N/A

Only five out
of 67 territorial authorities have a mixed system (e.g. Napier City, Tauranga
City, Kapiti Coast District, Masterton District and Gore District), with most
territorial authorities (50) having a ward system and 12 with an ‘at
large’ system.

The table below
outlines current population/member ratio; basis of election; and whether there
are community or local boards for similar-sized cities to Napier City.
Napier City has a higher number of elected members per population compared with
most other cities of a similar size.

District

Population

Population/Member
ratio

No. of
elected members

At large/mix

/Wards

Community
Boards/

Local Board
Area and Subdivision

Nelson City

50,600

4,217

12

At large

No

Upper Hutt City

42,600

4,260

10

At large

No

Invercargill City

54,700

4,558

12

At large

2

Napier City

61,050

5,088

12

Mix at Large
& (4 Wards)

No

Porirua City

55,350

5,535

10

Wards (3)

No

Palmerston North
City

86,300

5,733

15

At large

No

Lower Hutt City

103,350

8,613

12

Wards (6)

4

Dunedin City

127,000

9,071

14

At large

7

Tauranga City

128,300

12,830

10

Mix at Large
& 3 Wards

No

Hamilton City

161,200

13,433

12

Wards (2)

No

History of
Napier’s arrangements

The Local
Electoral Act 2001 was updated through the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2002
which introduced the option for Councils to review their arrangements every six
years rather than having to review them every three years. Since that
time, Napier City has undertaken a representation review every six years and
since 2006 Napier City Council’s review is on the same timeline as other
councils in Hawke’s Bay.

Over the last
27 years, Napier City has:

- experienced different bases of election
including ward-only system; an ‘at large’ system; and is one of a
handful of Councils to have experienced a ‘mixed system’, based on
‘at large’ and wards.

- mostly had 12 elected members excluding the
Mayor except for 3 years between 1995-1998 where there were 13 elected members
excluded the Mayor.

- no Community Boards.

Overview of representation arrangements include:

1989-1998

- Ward-only structure comprising of 3 wards
including Ahuriri, Onekawa and Taradale. Each ward had 4 elected members
except for between 1995-1998 where Taradale had 5 elected members. (The
decision to increase Taradale to 5 made by the Local Government Commission due
to the principle of fairness for the member/population ratio).

- Council survey undertaken just immediately prior
to Local Government Determination indicated the majority of the public
preferred ‘at large (70%); versus Wards (28%).

2007-2017

- ‘Mixed system’ for 10 years
comprising of 6 elected members elected ‘at large’, and 4 wards
including Ahuriri (1 elected member), Onekawa-Tamatea (1 elected member),
Nelson Park (2 elected members), and Taradale (2 elected members).

The following
chart outlines the percentage of public preferences on the basis of election on
Napier City’s representation arrangements from 1993 to 2011.

4.3 Issues

Over the last 27 years, voter
turnout has declined nationwide including in Napier City. Engaging the
public through the representation review process and ensuring fair and
effective representation is one way to encourage people to vote. The following
chart outlines the declining rates voter turnout for Napier City since the
early 1990s.

4.4 Significance and Consultation

Representation arrangements are
relevant for the entire population of Napier, and may extend to those people
that use services and facilities in Napier but reside outside of Napier
boundaries.

Officers have prepared an engagement plan to undertake pre-consultation
including providing background information on the representation review to the
public; and asking the public to share their ideas on - where they identify
their community of interest; what they think of the current arrangements; and
how they should be represented in the future.

As
part of the review of representation arrangements, a pre-consultation
engagement process will be undertaken between 24 September – 8
November. The community feedback will help inform Council of local issues
and needs, prior to developing a representation proposal and undertaking formal
consultation on it, i.e. seeking public submissions.

Approach:

The
pre-consultation engagement will target the general public and key stakeholders
including Maori, youth, seniors and the disability community.

Quantitative
feedback will be gained through an online survey, which will be promoted via
newspaper, social media and will be provided on tablets at events around the
city. A hardcopy will be made available at the libraries and the customer
service areas – people will be encouraged to participate online where
possible.

As
this engagement is about part of civic participation, staff from the library
will be asked to participate in the engagement. In addition, customer
service staff will be briefed and asked to encourage customers to participate.

1 Under section 19V(4) proposals
that do not comply with the +/-10% fair representation requirement are subject
to confirmation by the Commission.

2 Includes
any proposal that does not comply with the +/-10% fair representationrequirement.

3 Commission
determinations may also be subject to judicialreview.

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee – 30 August 2017– Open Agenda

Strategy and Infrastructure Committee – 30 August 2017– Open Agenda

5. National
Aquarium of New Zealand Expansion Project

Type of
Report:

Enter
Significance of Report

Legal
Reference:

Enter Legal
Reference

Document
ID:

383013

Reporting
Officer/s & Unit:

Sally
Jackson, Manager Visitor Experience

5.1 Purpose of Report

To
request that Council accept the Indicative Business Case for the Expansion
project of the National Aquarium of New Zealand and to instruct Council
officers to proceed with the next steps of the project.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a. Accept the Indicative
Business Case for the Expansion project for the National Aquarium of New
Zealand.

b. Instruct officers to
proceed with the next steps of the project, specifically

i. Present the final
indicative business case to Central Government agencies and seek their
feedback and endorsement.

ii. Include funding in
the draft Long Term Plan of $3,500,000 within the 2019/20 financial year; and
$3,500,000 with the 2020/21 financial year.

iii. Report back to
Council on the development of the next stage of the business case following
endorsement from Central Government.

MAYOR’S/CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the
officer’s recommendation be adopted.

5.2 Background Summary

Introducing
the National Aquarium of New Zealand

“Napier
is uniquely placed to showcase a little understood yet highly productive region
of New Zealand’s marine estate. The East Coast is a vibrant marine
ecosystem influenced by the sub-Antarctic oceanic current, yet with evidence of
pulses of warmer northern currents, remnants of the East Auckland current. The
result is a rich and varied biodiversity… The marine aquarium at Napier
therefore constitutes an enormously valuable portal …into the functioning
of a marine ecosystem that is resilient, biodiverse and productive.”
– Professor Chris Battershill, Chair Coastal
Science, University of Waikato

Napier was the site of
New Zealand's first aquarium when, in 1956, a local
fish-keeping club, began gathering some of their favourite specimens in the
basement of Napier’s War Memorial Hall. Twenty years later the
fish-keeping club moved to a purpose-built site at the southern end of Marine
Parade, where the aquarium is located today.

In
the early 2000s, with a $1 million grant from the Central Government Lotteries
Fund, the aquarium underwent an $8 million redevelopment and with the support
from the Prime Minister’s office at the time, was renamed the National
Aquarium of New Zealand.

The
current facility showcases New Zealand native species including a 1.5 million
litre "Oceanarium" exhibiting the diversity of the local Hawke Bay
aquatic environment alongside species from the different continents of the
world.

Matariki – Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy
(REDS)

The
National Aquarium of New Zealand expansion project is a part of the
Government's Regional Growth Programme, which has identified potential growth
opportunities in selected regions, to help increase jobs, income and investment
in regional New Zealand.

This
project is included in Matariki
– Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy and Action
Plan 2016, which has a vision of "Every household and every whānau is actively engaged in, contributing to and
benefiting from a thriving Hawke’s Bay economy". This is to be
achieved by making Hawke’s Bay the most innovative region in New Zealand,
the leading exporter of premium primary produce, and a hub for business growth.

The project
has been commissioned jointly by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment (MBIE) and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), working in
partnership with other Central Government agencies and regional stakeholders,
such as businesses, iwi and Māori, economic
development agencies and local government.

One action under the strategic direction of Promote
greater innovation, productivity and agility is to "Support the
expansion of the National Aquarium of New Zealand, including the development of
marine research, to create high-skilled science-based employment."

The
National Aquarium of New Zealand expansion project is being led by Napier City
Council, in partnership with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the
University of Waikato along with the support of several other public and
research organisations.

Development of the
Indicative Business Case and Revenue Generation Strategy

In November
2016, Napier City Council commissioned Giblin Group to develop an indicative
business case and revenue generation strategy for the expansion project. These
are attached as Appendix One and Two.

In the development phase of the indicative business case,
key stakeholders identified four investment objectives for the expansion
project:

§ To increase opportunities for education,
training, research and employment in the natural sciences and aquarium
management for New Zealanders and particularly Hawke’s Bay residents.

§ To tell the stories of the people of
Aotearoa New Zealand and their relationship with the land and sea, encouraging
kaitiakitanga of the natural environment contributing to its conservation and
sustainability.

§ To create a unique destination which will
draw people from far and near to visit Hawke’s Bay, to engage with the
natural world, and to return again and again because the experience is so
unforgettable.

§ To create a facility that is financially
sustainable that positively influences the local and national economy, and
augments the tourism, education and science sectors within Hawke’s Bay
and New Zealand.

The business
case followed the New Zealand Treasury Better Business Case format and
is organised around the five-case model to systematically assess that the
investment proposal:

§ is supported by a robust case for change -
the “Strategic Case”;

§ optimises value for money - the
“Economic Case”;

§ is commercially viable - the
“Commercial Case”;

§ is financially affordable - the
“Financial Case”, and

§ is achievable - the “Management
Case”.

The Strategic Case for the Expansion
Project

Napier
City Council’s strategic direction and planning documents support the
proposed National Aquarium of New Zealand expansion project. The proposed
expansion also fits well with and contributes to the objectives of many other
regional and national policies and strategies. It can also contribute to
national strategic outcomes.

The proposed
expansion aligns well with environmental programmes both in New Zealand and
internationally and offers the opportunity for significant partnerships to be
established both at home and overseas.

The main
drivers of this proposal are the opportunities that have presented themselves
through the Matariki REDS and other strategies currently being developed in the
region, i.e. the Integrated Catchment Management Plan being developed by
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the University of Waikato.

NANZ has
reached capacity in terms of space, programmes and resources and if nothing is
done to cater for expansion, then it may very well end up going backwards
rather than capitalising on its reputation and success to date as a respected
centre of marine management.

In a
facilitated stakeholder workshops held on 16th November 2016, there
was a consensus from participants that to do nothing would result in a lost
opportunity and that somewhere else might step into the breach and build an
aquarium that would take over from the National Aquarium of New Zealand.

The stakeholders
also considered that to be successful, this project needed to be addressed
boldly and with vision. Small changes to the facility or to the exhibits would
not achieve the stated objectives.

The Economic Case for the Expansion Project

Options for the
development were discussed by stakeholders at the facilitated workshop held on
16th November 2016.

A Long List of
Options was developed which addressed the “What, Where, Who, How and
When” of the proposal.

On the basis of
the options analysis, the recommended preferred way forward was:

§ A new extension to the aquarium and upgrade
of current facility;

§ The facility to be located on the current
site;

§ Research into the management of other
aquariums suggests the best management model is to establish a governing board
or trust for the facility which will have representatives from partner
organisations and be not-for-profit;

§ A mix of funding sources to support the
capital construction and ongoing operations;

§ A multi-staged construction to transition
from the old premises to the new and to allow upgrade of the current building.

Visitor number
projections have been undertaken
by an independent tourism consultant, Dave Bamford with a low projection of
200,000, a medium projection of 250,000 and a high projection of 325,000 per
annum. The average number of visitors per annum is currently 150,000.

These numbers have been used in the economic impact
analysis and financial projections.

An Economic Impact Assessment has identified monetary
benefits from the proposal for the region through:

The table below highlights the anticipated economic impact
of the expanded facility.

Economic Impact Measures

Current Operation

Construction of Redeveloped NAQNZ
Facility

Redeveloped NAQNZ Operation
Including Visitor Spending

Low Projection

Medium Projection

High Projection

Total
Revenue ($M)

10.19

82.38

31.19

36.62

44.87

Net
Household Income ($M)

2.59

11.39

6.44

7.42

8.89

Employment
(Persons/Jobs)

92

291

238

278

338

Value
Added/GDP ($M)

5.40

23.07

14.33

16.65

20.17

Under the Low
projection, the key regional Value Added/ GDP impact increases from the current
annual figure of approximately $5.4 million to approximately $14.3 million.

Under the Medium
projection, the GDP impact increases from the $5.4 million figure to
approximately $16.7 million.

Under the High
projection, the regional Value Added or GDP impact increases from $5.4 million
to approximately $20.2 million.

The overall
employment increase is from 92 to in the range 238-338. The economic impacts
for the facility reconstruction stage are also separately shown.

Potential
benefits of the proposal that cannot be reliably quantified in monetary terms
have also been identified and are detailed within the Business Case. These
benefits may be seen in the social, cultural and environmental spheres of
community wellbeing.

The Commercial Case for the Expansion Project

Napier City Council has considerable experience in the
tendering of and contracting for large construction projects. It has
procurement processes in place to secure and manage a contract with a suitable
supplier. The process also caters for a situation where there is only one
suitable supplier available within New Zealand. This is the case with the
National Aquarium of New Zealand expansion project.

A key procurement risk has been
identified, due to only one practical supplier for this job; the risk is that
the price may be inflated because of the limited ability to compare with other
suppliers.

The Contracts
Policy requires that where this situation occurs, the purchaser (NCC Manager
responsible) must demonstrate in an auditable manner that the price is value
for money and the reasons for the selection of a single supplier are well
documents.

Marinescape is
the only real option for undertaking this work if Napier City Council selects a
local New Zealand company. If this is the case, it is recommended that an
independent reviewer peer reviews and assesses the costs they propose for the
project. Further options for architectural design will be explored during the
final business case analysis.

A preliminary
estimate for the capital works has been submitted by Marinescape, detailing the
facility construction costs of $27.5 Million and specialist works costs of
$17.5 Million.

This
preliminary estimate is based on concept designs which are certain to be
further refined.

It should be
noted that the current concept designs do not adequately address the strong theme, which emerged from the stakeholder workshops that this
is a unique chance to tell the story of New Zealand’s relationship with
the sea, particularly from a Māoritanga perspective.

Marine scientists
should also be involved in the design of the exhibits to ensure authenticity.

Marinescape
Managing Director, Ian Mellsop has said in an email to NCC: “By carefully reviewing the design and making adjustments using a
cost optimisation approach, I believe it may possible to reduce this by about
20% without impacting significantly on the Architects intent. This work should
be carried out as part of the next stage design works.”

This would
reduce the costs of construction to $22,000,000. There is clearly some room to
move on this price and NCC should negotiate with the supplier on this.

The financial
analysis model and the associated methodology is a profit and loss model for
the operating projections.

The financial
projections have been based on the current NANZ operating costs and based on
the following assumptions for future operations:

§ The
floor area of the aquarium will be three times the size of the existing space.

§ For the Medium visitor scenario, the National Aquarium of New
Zealand operations will see a surplus in the first two years of operation, then
have two years of deficits equating to a 1% rating impact, then return to
surplus in Year 4.

§ For the High visitor scenario, the National Aquarium of New
Zealand operations will see a surplus from the first full year of operation.

§ The impact of a
capital contribution to the project (estimated at $7M) is $430,000 per year for
25 years.

The financial analysis of the preferred option demonstrates that it is
affordable only if central government puts substantive funding into the capital
costs of this project.

The potential for funding from corporate partnerships is considered to be
high as the NANZ will have many saleable properties within it which could
attract corporate partners, e.g. the themed areas, exhibits and structures, and
naming rights for the entire facility are also available.

The
Management Case for the Expansion Project

Napier
City Council has a track record of managing large capital projects successfully
on time and within budget. It has project management processes in place to
manage, execute, monitor and evaluate the project and has the ability to
contract specialist personnel where necessary if internal capability does not
exist.

The
actual detail of the project management planning will be undertaken when Napier
City Council approves further work on this project following the presentation
of the Business Case.

It
is recommended that a dedicated Project Manager be appointed to this project,
supported by a Project Team. A detailed Project Plan will be developed by the
Project Manager taking note of key milestones, which will be specified as part
of the project.

Key Project Partners

USA partners

Napier City
Council is in the process of establishing relationships with overseas
aquariums, particularly in California, USA. A recent visit to Monterey Bay
Aquarium, the California Academy of Sciences, The Aquarium of the Pacific, and
Birch Aquarium at Scripps was a trip designed to foster co-operative and
collaborative relationships internationally. Napier City Council is seeking to
work together with each of these institutions in a range of areas relating to
education and research around marine sustainability.

Areas of
partnership include:

§ Marine science research and education
programmes;

§ Ocean conservation, sustainability and
environmental issues;

§ Marine conservation and care through
tourism, education and research to inspire behaviour change;

§ Exchanges of staff and personnel.

§ Business modelling / mentorship.

Design Partners – Weta Workshop

Weta Workshop
has joined the Expansion project team as the lead designers and will work
alongside the team of aquarium designers in order to achieve the vision and
outcomes of the facility.

They will
articulate through high-level design concepts, the following elements of the
project:

· The story of New Zealand and its relation
to Hawk Bay

· The unique indigenous story of Napier and
Hawke’s Bay

· The importance of the ocean to world

· The current state of the ocean (impact on
activity occurring on land through to our waterways, estuaries and out to sea)

An independent tourism consultant was used
to assess and advise on the visitor numbers for the expanded facility. Figures
used in the business case are considered conservative and it is recognised that
the brand power of Weta Workshop is substantial to the project. The association
with Weta Workshop and the expansion project will result in increased visitors
into Napier specifically to visit the aquarium. Napier City Council will be
working alongside the Weta Workshop team to ensure all brand opportunities are
maximized.

Sustainability
Partner – Air New Zealand

Air New Zealand
has identified that there are many synergies with the expansion project. Air
New Zealand has expressed support of the National Aquarium Expansion Project as
a logical extension of their commitment to preserving and protecting New
Zealand’s unique natural environment for current and future generations. They
have noted that they are behind the project and fully committed to working with
Council and its other partners in seeing it through to fruition.

Education
Partner - The University of Waikato

The University
of Waikato will also take a role in the project’s development. Vice
Chancellor Professor Neil Quigley has noted that the University of Waikato is
committed to creating and building knowledge and technologies that support New
Zealand's sustainable future. As a partner in the Aquarium's expansion, they
see this project as an exciting opportunity to further that research and
teaching in a facility which reflects and enhances that intent.

5.3 Issues

This is an
Indicative Business Case, which considers the information available at the
present date. There is a high probability that some changes will be required
for the proposal to be viable. Key to the success of this project is:

§ Development of the design in conjunction with iwi representatives
and marine researchers;

§ Interpretation and delivery of the messages through Weta
Workshop’s technological expertise;

§ Achievement of the funding targets as outlined in the Revenue
Generation Strategy prepared for the project;

§ Experienced project management;

§ Best practice facility governance and management.

5.4 Significance and
Consultation

Consultation has been held with
key stakeholders through project group meetings and workshops, iwi, staff and
the neighbouring properties of the National Aquarium.

5.5 Implications

Financial

The capital cost of the construction has
been valued at $45 million dollars with a proposed Council contribution of $7
million (loan funded) split over two financial years.

The revenue assumptions include three
scenarios for visitor numbers:

§ The low
visitor scenario of 200, 000 visitors (most conservative, providing the visitor
numbers are achievable) shows the NANZ will make a small loss in the first five
years with a 1% or 2% impact on rates. This is an equivalent or lesser impact
than what currently occurs.

§ The medium
visitor scenario of 250,000 visitors shows an initial surplus, then a couple of
years of losses when maintenance costs begin. The loss once again is small with
a 1% or 0% rating impact.

§ The high
visitor scenario of 325,000 visitors will see the NANZ making a profit from
Year 0 and will have no negative impact on annual rates.

The impact of a
capital contribution to the project (estimated at $7M) is $430,000 per year for
25 years.

Social &
Policy

Accessibility
for Napier and Hawke’s Bay locals

$100,000 has been
placed to in the budget to allow for accessibility programmes for locals and
initiatives with social providers and schools will be in place to ensure all
locals can gain access to the facility.

Free open days for
locals will continue and school programmes that provide free access for school
children will be introduced.

A pricing strategy
will be developed within the detailed business case to maximize revenue
generation and will identify and assess the opportunities around the local and tourist
market.

Risk

The main risks
fall into two categories: Construction/Delivery Risks and Operating Risks.

A risk register
has been developed and can be progressively updated as more detailed analysis
is undertaken. This is displayed in the Business Case.

5.6 Options

The options available to Council
are as follows:

Option
One

To
accept the Indicative Business Case for the Expansion project of the National
Aquarium of New Zealand and to instruct Council officers to proceed with the
next steps of the project which include:

· Present the final
indicative business case to Central Government agencies and seek their feedback
and endorsement.

· Include funding in the
draft Long Term Plan of $3,500,000 within the 2019/20 financial year; and
$3,500,000 with the 2020/21 financial year.

· Report back to Council
on the development of the next stage of the business case following endorsement
from Central Government.

Option
Two

To not proceed any further with the expansion
project.

5.7 Development of Preferred
Option

The
preferred option is to proceed with Option One which is to accept the
Indicative Business Case for the Expansion project of the National Aquarium of
the New Zealand and to instruct Council officers to proceed next steps of the
project. This is based on the Business Case
demonstrating a very strong strategic case for undertaking the project.

The Business Case
shows a positive picture in terms of the proposed expansion of the National
Aquarium of New Zealand economically and financially, although the latter will
need a long-term view in terms of attaining an operating surplus under the
lowest projection scenario.

To seek a decision from Council
to suspend further progress on the Detailed Business Case for the Multi-Use
Sports Facility and that the information developed in the draft business case
is provided to the Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre
(RISEC) Trust for the purpose of developing an independent Detailed Business
Case for Indoor Courts.

Officer’s Recommendation

a. That
the progress on the Multi-Use Sports Facility Business Case is suspended until
such a time that community recreation projects are prioritised and sequenced
in the future.

b. That
funding allocated for the Multi-Use Sports Facility be reallocated through
the Long Term Plan 2018-28 process to other projects that support community
well-being.

c. That
Council officers work with the Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre
(RISEC) Trust in the development of a detailed business case for additional
indoor court space at Pettigrew Green Arena.

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve that the
officer’s recommendation be adopted.

6.2 Background Summary

A proposed multi-use velodrome
concept was consulted with the community in the drafting of the 2015/25 Long
Term Plan. Strong support for the proposal was raised by the cycling
community and others, however there was also significant support for the
development of more indoor courts. It was agreed by Council to progress
to a detailed business case for a Multi-Use Sports Facility (MUSF) that
incorporated indoor court space into a velodrome complex. Funding of
$5,094,000 was allocated to the MUSF from the Capital Reserves Fund. It
was proposed that the balance of the funding required would come from external
grants and sponsorship opportunities.

A full business case has since
been drafted which details the design and siting of the facility, the capital
and operational costs, and the community-wide benefits of an integrated indoor
multi-use court and velodrome complex. It is considered that the draft
business case makes a compelling argument for the establishment of such a
facility to complement the wider recreation offering in Hawke’s Bay. The
projections demonstrated that the proposed facility would contribute to meeting
current and growing demand for indoor court provision as well as providing a
unique additional sports component with the inclusion of an elevated velodrome track.
It is this element of the design that provides a point of difference that would
more likely attract external funding.

6.3 Issues

The draft detailed business case
was delivered to Sport New Zealand for feedback in November 2016. Sport
New Zealand commissioned APR Consultants Ltd to carry out an independent review
of the business case. A summary of the reviewers’ opinion follows:

· The project
rationale is well researched and the project objectives are SMART (specific,
measureable, achievable, relevant and time bound).

· While the
financial analyses are reasonable; there may be some pressure on the target
amounts for other capital funding sources which require further clarification.
This is important given the level of funding from NCC represents only around
25% of total project capital funding. Also there is an inherent risk in the
level of debt funding proposed. Project debt on a project of this nature with
uncertain income streams and operational costs raises significant project
risks, particularly with uncommitted project capital.

· The wider
socio-economic benefits are well described and conservatively estimated.

· The assessment
of alternative delivery options is comprehensive and transparent.

· At a local
authority level the proposed facility is well-aligned with other relevant
projects, plans and budgets; supported by organisational strategies and
policies; and has accounted for public feedback and stakeholder engagement.
However there is further clarification required around other proposed regional
projects and the Hawke’s Bay Regions Facilities Network Plan.

· Options and
preferences on governance and management aspects of the proposal have been
clearly set out, subject to further consultation and refinement.

· Subject to the
matters raised above and below the identification, measurement, mitigation and
management of risks has been adequately accounted for.

Sport New Zealand provided
further feedback based on its own high level review identifying what were seen
as gaps in information and made recommendations for further consideration by
the project team in finalising the business case.

In Sport New Zealand’s
feedback the question was raised whether the proposed facility is an
appropriate response to the priority needs identified and adopted in the
Hawke’s Bay Regional Facilities Plan (HBRFP). The HBRFP does
however clearly state the following priority action for the sport of cycling;

Develop a
Better Business Cases study for a Velodrome in Hawke's Bay aligned with the
National Cycling Major Events Strategy

A key concern
of Sport New Zealand’s was that the proposal did not demonstrate
adequately how it would meet the needs of Maori, particularly young Maori, in
engaging in sport. It is considered that while this element has been covered
within the business case, it will need to be strengthened within the final
business case with the provision of greater supporting evidence.

At this stage Sport New Zealand
do not maintain any position on the support or otherwise of the MUSF proposal
and cannot state its position until the business case is complete. Sport
New Zealand are currently developing their sports facilities strategy which
will identify where velodromes are best located within New Zealand. Once
this work is complete, the business case can be updated in response to gaps
identified in the feedback provided by APR Consultants Ltd and Sport New
Zealand.

It is therefore
considered necessary to suspend progressing the business case until Sport New
Zealand have worked through their national strategies for sporting
infrastructure development. It would also be prudent to remove the
funding allocated for the MUSF and have this funding available for community
well-being projects in the Long Term Plan.

Suspending the
business case development will not address the immediate need for indoor courts
identified as high priority by the HBRFP and indoor sporting codes. The
Regional Indoor Sports and Events Centre (RISEC) Trust are committed to
progressing an independent business case proposing to develop additional indoor
courts at the Pettigrew Green Arena. It is considered that much of the
background work carried out in the development of the MUSF business case can be
incorporated to the Trust’s proposal. Council officers will work
with the Trust in progressing their proposal.

6.4 Significance and
Consultation

N/A

6.5 Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

N/A

6.6 Options

The options available to Council
are as follows:

1. Suspend the
progress on finalising the detailed business case and reallocate the funding
for other community well-being projects identified through the Long Term Plan
2018/28 process.

2. Progress the
detailed business case to completion and formally present to Council.

6.7 Development of
Preferred Option

Sport New Zealand commissioned
APR Consultants Ltd to provide an independent review of the detailed business
case for the Multi-Use Sports Facility. The review and feedback from
Sport New Zealand highlighted gaps in information and where further supporting
evidence is required before they can state their position on the
proposal. Sport New Zealand are also carrying out their own national
strategies for sporting infrastructure development and until this has been
completed it is unlikely that they will be able to provide a position statement
on the proposal. The preferred option is to therefore suspend the
development of the detailed business case until this has occurred.

In response to questions from Councillors, the Chief
Executive (‘CE’) advised that:

·There are
currently three primary goals for the strategy, with measures which will be
used to assess success. These goals are:

oTo increase the average wage across
Hawke’s Bay

oTo create 5000 jobs over the next 5
years (measures for this goal include such things as NCEA Level 3 attainment
for Māori/ Non-Māori and changes in employment growth)

oTo become a top quartile regional
performer for GDP. Measures for this goal will be broken down by sector.

·Council are
trialling a collaboration portal on behalf of the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment (MBIE) which will allow elected members to see how
we are tracking against those goals on a website. Quarterly reports will also
be able to be generated via the portal.

It was asked how the Matariki REDS strategy was or may be
able to be aligned with the recently launched government contestable fund for
youth projects. The CE advised that the strategy shares a similar
‘language’ with the new fund in that activities that create and
encourage social inclusion are a key focus in how development will be
approached. What is important is that the identification of key projects or
activities will happen at local level rather than being ‘imposed’
by government. For example, it has recently been presented to the Matariki
team that drivers’ licensing programmes have the potential to make a
large difference in accessibility to work.

It was expected that there are a number of robust
development opportunities that could win a strong share of the contestable
fund.

The consultation on the social inclusion strategy has now
been completed and the draft document is being finalised. It is expected that
this will be circulated to council in the near future.

The Mayor acknowledged the considerable work put into the
Matariki REDS by the Chief Executive.

General support was indicated for the recommendation to
take options 2, 3 and 4 to public consultation; it had become clear over
recent discussions that a ‘no frills’ renovation would not meet
the community’s needs. It was noted that this business case is focussed
specifically on the aquatic facilities themselves and consideration to
related matters such as car parking and surrounding environment will be
addressed separately.

It was suggested that the appetite for a 50m pool may
become clearer through the consultation process. It was hoped that in general
there would be good levels of feedback through the process, reflecting the
range of people that would use the facilities in different ways.

It was noted that the process of developing the options
has been undertaken extremely quickly, in part out of necessity following the
unexpected closure of the Greendale Pool in December 2016. The Community Team
was thanked for the work they have undertaken to present such strong options
as fast as they have.

There was strong support for the draft Ahuriri
Masterplan. It was seen as a visionary and robust document, with a heavy
focus on environmental considerations while also allowing for recreational
use. It was anticipated that future generations would truly see the benefits
of the work to be undertaken now under the plan.

It was noted that there will be opportunities to work in
partnership with and or alongside a number of organisations and build useful
relationships to achieve the aims of the masterplan. Taking the opportunity
to work closely with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and sharing our
vision for the Estuary was seen as particularly important.

It was noted that the initial trial had gone well and the
commercial activity was seen as creating vibrancy on the foreshore for
cyclists and pedestrians. It was good that the location had been moved to
work in better with the petanque club.

Some concerns were raised on two matters:

·It was noted that
the area had experienced inundation in early July; the owners would need to
be prepared to address this possibly occurring again.

·It was asked that
Council review the charging model, noting that 5% turnover in arrears acts as
a disincentive to good operators. It was recommended that a set monthly fee
be looked at instead.

The
general subject of each matter to be considered while the public was excluded,
the reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the
specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution were as
follows:

GENERAL SUBJECT OF

EACH MATTER TO BE
CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS
RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER

GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION
48(1) TO THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION

1. CBD
Security Patrols

7(2)(b)(ii) Protect
information where the making available of the information would be likely
unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied
or who is the subject of the information

48(1)A That the
public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the
meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which
good reason for withholding would exist:
(i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this
Act, under Section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

2. Citizen's
Civic Award recommended recipients

7(2)(a) Protect the
privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

48(1)A That the
public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the
meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which
good reason for withholding would exist:
(i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this
Act, under Section 6 or 7 (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.